On Friday, the United States Department of Agriculture quietly released new statistics related to the food stamps program, officially known as SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The numbers reveal, in 2012, the food stamps program was the biggest it's ever been, with an average of 46,609,072 people on the program every month of last year. 47,791,996 people were on the program in the month of December 2012.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said that the Obama administration is encouraging growth in the food stamps program as a way to stimulate the economy.

Amazingly, the federal government says that the more people we have on food stamps, the more it grows the economy. The Department of Agriculture proudly declares: ‘Each $5 in new [food stamp] benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic activity for the community.’ Our government is running food stamp promotions at foreign embassies. One worker was given an award for overcoming ‘mountain pride’ and getting more people to sign up. Where I grew up in Alabama, all honest work, even the hardest, was honored. And pride, self-respect, and a desire to be independent was valued, not a thing to be overcome," said Sessions, who delivered the weekly Republican address.

Sessions also pointed out that cities like Baltimore, which he said have have been "governed by liberal policies for decades," see particularly high numbers of participation in the program.

"Despite this fountain of federal funds, 1 in 3 children still live in poverty in our nation’s capital. Two in three children live in single parent homes. In nearby Baltimore--another city governed by liberal policies for decades--1 in 3 residents are on food stamps and in 1 in 3 youth live in poverty. Americans are committed to helping our sisters and brothers who are struggling, but we are seeing the damaging human consequences of our broken welfare state," said Sessions.

"We spend a trillion dollars each year on federal poverty programs. That’s more than the budget for Social Security or Defense. But poverty seems only to increase. Something is wrong. Compassion demands that we change."

If food stamps stimulated the economy, we would have a booming economy!

Just wondering when you'll be able to grasp the bigger picture here in terms of income inequality and job exporting in general, and the impact it has on our country?

Curious...what yearly salary do you think a janitor should make? How about a CEO?

I would advocate for a mandated living wage so companies cannot suck our Treasury dry by expecting the taxpayers to pay what underpaid employees cannot afford (food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, child care assistance, etc.) I'm tired of subsidizing companies because they refuse to pay a living wage. Would it break a company like Walmart? No. They can afford to pay - they just have enough votes in Congress to ensure that the rest of us do it for them.

That's not what I asked you. Let me try this again...what yearly salary amount do you think a janitor should make? How about a CEO?

I think the janitor should make a living wage, which would be somewhere around $35 - $40k, or $15/hr.

Salaries for CEO's of the fortune 500 companies average about $15m each. They probably earn more before lunch than the janitor makes in a year. I don't now what they should make, but the ratio of CEO pay to employee pay has exploded in the past 30 yrs.

Here is an outstanding editorial from one of the nations most respected economists on the subject of pay inequality and its effects

That's not what I asked you. Let me try this again...what yearly salary amount do you think a janitor should make? How about a CEO?

I think the janitor should make a living wage, which would be somewhere around $35 - $40k, or $15/hr.

Salaries for CEO's of the fortune 500 companies average about $15m each. They probably earn more before lunch than the janitor makes in a year. I don't now what they should make, but the ratio of CEO pay to employee pay has exploded in the past 30 yrs.

Here is an outstanding editorial from one of the nations most respected economists on the subject of pay inequality and its effects

Wasn't it you who stated something about income inequality in your first post? So shouldn't you have some idea of what you think are appropriate salaries for both janitor AND CEO?

The average salary for major league baseball players is $3.4 million per year. The tenures of MLB players is very short. They must produce or be replaced....similarly, CEOs are the very top of the business world, they are relatively few in number....their tenure is short, they must succeed or be quickly replaced..

Janitors, there are hundreds of thousands....if a private sector company was forced to pay janitors a "living wage", which is more than they are truly worth, the companies will hire fewer of them...and accelerate the technology to have cleaning be automated..and of course, hardworking folks who want to excel in the cleaning industry and work their way up from janitor....wont have that opportunity.

So instead of a 'living wage', there will be no wage. Which seems to be the progressive goal anyway, everyone on the Government dole.

That's not what I asked you. Let me try this again...what yearly salary amount do you think a janitor should make? How about a CEO?

I think the janitor should make a living wage, which would be somewhere around $35 - $40k, or $15/hr.

Salaries for CEO's of the fortune 500 companies average about $15m each. They probably earn more before lunch than the janitor makes in a year. I don't now what they should make, but the ratio of CEO pay to employee pay has exploded in the past 30 yrs.

Here is an outstanding editorial from one of the nations most respected economists on the subject of pay inequality and its effects

Just wondering when you'll be able to grasp the bigger picture here in terms of income inequality and job exporting in general, and the impact it has on our country?

Curious...what yearly salary do you think a janitor should make? How about a CEO?

I would advocate for a mandated living wage so companies cannot suck our Treasury dry by expecting the taxpayers to pay what underpaid employees cannot afford (food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, child care assistance, etc.) I'm tired of subsidizing companies because they refuse to pay a living wage. Would it break a company like Walmart? No. They can afford to pay - they just have enough votes in Congress to ensure that the rest of us do it for them.

Our country once had a social contract, but no longer.

What you are advocating is redistributing the CEO's salary out to those who did not earn it.

Does that sound fair to you?

The only real subsidy companies like Walmart get is people like you buying their product. So, don't shop at Walmart.

The political powers to be, don't care about you. They ceased to care about you, and the poor, once they started to destroy the relationship between the people and their government by paying for some people to sit around. Every four years or so, sometimes every two years, they remind you (or people like you) that you are bouught and paid for on the auction block of entitlements.

Politicians care about two constituencies: Those they can control, and those that are a threat to their power. the rest, are the useless great unwashed, which is most of us posting here.

"In the last 60 years, the ratio of CEO:avg worker pay has gone from roughly 15:1 to 400:1 in this country.

Everywhere else it's still 10:1 to 15;1 generally.

If one believed as CEOs and the boards behind them say - that the pay reflects their worth to the company - one should be lead to ask why our companies aren't doing 400/15 times better, now that they are paid 400/15 times more in salary+options/etc+benefits."

Flawed logic. Failed CEOS are paid ZERO, they are FIRED. Tenure matters. It is far from a lifetime position, and there are relatively few positions available. CEOs as a group are paid more, because the free market has determined their value. Like professional athletes, their tenure is brief, they are the elite...and as soon as they slip, there are others ready to take over.

"2008: We study CEO turnover both internal (board driven) and external (through takeover and bankruptcy) from 1992 to 2005 for a sample of large U.S. companies. Annual CEO turnover is higher than that estimated in previous studies over earlier periods. Turnover is 15.6% from 1992 to 2005, implying an average tenure as CEO of less than seven years. In the more recent period since 1998, total CEO turnover increases to 17.4%, implying an average tenure of less than six years."

The same flawed logic is used by progressives with the "1%"...the individuals constituting the 1% changes continuously. The CEO salary is higher because there are few slots available, and they are worth it if they succeed. If they fail, they are FIRED.

In the last 60 years, the ratio of CEO:avg worker pay has gone from roughly 15:1 to 400:1 in this country.

Everywhere else it's still 10:1 to 15;1 generally.

If one believed as CEOs and the boards behind them say - that the pay reflects their worth to the company - one should be lead to ask why our companies aren't doing 400/15 times better, now that they are paid 400/15 times more in salary+options/etc+benefits.

What to do about it, whether it should be done, and who should do it, well, that's an entirely different story.....

In my opinion, all that happened is that over the years CEOs all looked at each other, realizing that they're all largely sitting on the boards of other companies and can set pay for those companies' CEO. Silent collusion resulted: Every board overpays the CEO, and every board member, currently or in the future a CEO of another company, gets their own back rubbed.

Silent collusion? Really? CEO's overpaid? I agree to a point, but it has nothign to do with what others get paid, but more to do with how they get paid.

Many CEO's, if they get a straight salary, are overpaid. Most are paid via stock options. As I have pointed out in the past, this is both incentive and a straightjacket. extercising stock options is a tricky thing to do if it is your main source of income, and it is fraught with tax issues, and cash flow isses, as well as issues for the company.

So, on balance CEO's get paid appropriately, with some outlyers, like the CEO of GM, other large companies.

"In the last 60 years, the ratio of CEO:avg worker pay has gone from roughly 15:1 to 400:1 in this country.

Everywhere else it's still 10:1 to 15;1 generally.

If one believed as CEOs and the boards behind them say - that the pay reflects their worth to the company - one should be lead to ask why our companies aren't doing 400/15 times better, now that they are paid 400/15 times more in salary+options/etc+benefits."

Flawed logic. Failed CEOS are paid ZERO, they are FIRED.

Ignores golden parachutes.

And what is this? Are you claiming that when the ratio of CEO:avg pay was more like 15:1, CEOs weren't fired? Huh? No? Then why is it supposed to be relevant?

And what of the performance of the ones who stayed on?

Did you just google "CEO pay" and copy/paste the first thing you found?

And I'm the one who has flawed logic? LOL.

It's sad when the only person whose posts make less sense than yours is the guy theorizing about nanothermite goblins destroying towers to help Bush make oil money.

Not every CEO gets golden parachutes. Most companies are not large companies, and large companies are the only ones that can really afford golden parachutes, at least decent ones.

But, a golden parachute is really like tenure for teachers. It protects the employed form the abuses of the employer.